Wednesday, May 31, 2006

I've been reading Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. A worthwhile read and quite the eye-opener, which got me to thinking about Isaiah 7:14 (Behold, a virgin (or young woman depending on your scholarhsip) shall conceive etc.) It is transparently obvious from a logical point of view that this verse has nothing to do with Jesus, and that the Christian apologist arguments to the contrary are vacuous.

Consider the following prophecy:

"Behold, a race horse shall win the Triple Crown and his name shall be called Sussmahir."

Now, suppose I claimed that Seattle Slew fulfilled that prophecy. You might counter that while they may share a few letters in common, "Seattle Slew" and "Sussmahir" are quite transparently not the same name. At which point I, playing the role of the religious apologist (and those of you who speak Hebrew are no doubt way ahead of me here) would point out that "Sussmahir" means "fast horse" and there can be no denying that Seattle Slew has been called a fast horse. Q.E.D.

The problem, of course, is that on the apologists' view both prophecies are vacuous. Of course any triple crown winner will be called a fast horse, and of course the (any?) Messiah will be called (some variant of) God With Us by someone (though, I note in passing, Jesus is actually never referred to that way in the New Testament).

Of course, none of this will convince a believer, and so I get quite depressed when people put forth extraordinary efforts to produce even more extensive debunkings. And, of course, all of it completely misses the point, which is that people do not believe in God because it makes sense. People believe in God because it helps them deal with their pain.

You'd think that after reams and reams of futile debunking all these atheists and agnostics (who are by and large fairly bright people, even though many of them are complete morons when it comes to marketing) would take a step back and try to figure out why it isn't working. But they don't. They just keep spouting logic, completely oblivious to the fact that in many cases that is actually making matters worse. There's a reason most people don't gravitate towards math and science.

It is at once amazing and tragic how so many smart people can miss such a simple and obvious truth.

Hm, I must have missed that part of the First Amendment where it spells out all the exceptions to freedom of speech. Let's see.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nope, still don't see it.

[At this point an NSA agent breaks into my house and hits me upside the head with a baseball bat.]

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, except in such cases where it would embarrass or inconvenience powerful government officials.

Oh. Right. There it is. Can't imagine how I managed to miss that.

What's that sound I hear? It must be the founding fathers rolling over in their graves as they behold government of the people, by the people, and for the people slowly perish from the earth.

"'... it can't be the case that that right [the First Amendment Right to freedom of the press] trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity,' he said. 'And so those two principles have to be accommodated.'"

Well, no. Actually, the Constitution specifically says what rights we have in that regard. The Fourth Amendment reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." (emphasis added) And, of course, this means unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, not by burglars.

This "right" that the "people" have to "see ... the government go after criminal activity" was invented by Gonzales out of whole cloth, and it completely eviscerates the First Amendment. If this theory holds, all the government has to do to censor information is to classify it.

Once again the Bush Administration is trying to take a bite out of the Constitution. Not that this should come as a suprise to anyone at this point.

Saturday, May 20, 2006

Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan, writes that yesterday's story about Iran considering a law requiring Jews and Christians to wear distinguishing insignia is (and I quote) "a steaming crock."

Friday, May 19, 2006

BALTIMORE -- Baltimore City police arrested a Virginia couple over the weekend after they asked an officer for directions.

WBAL-TV 11 News I-Team reporter David Collins said Joshua Kelly and Llara Brook, of Chantilly, Va., got lost leaving an Orioles game on Saturday. Collins reported a city officer arrested them for trespassing on a public street while they were asking for directions.

Sunday, May 14, 2006

One of the problems with the President having unilateral power to throw people in prison without trial is there is no way to stop him from doing just that to political opponents. Think it can't happen? Think again.